Curfews

Thoie · 11-12-2008 11:58pm

Wow, I'm glad I posted this somewhere for reasoned debate. I'd hate any knee jerk reactions.

First off - I'm a random person on an internet forum throwing out an idea to see what other people think. I'm not in charge of making any laws in Ireland (which it seems many of you will be thankful for), so this is just a discussion. I personally have not, and will not, be taking away anyone's rights.

You want to tar all under 18's as scumbags who "must be up to no good" if they are out at 8:01pm.

Well, no, I’m not tarring anyone as anything. I’m asking for good reasons as to why children should be out unaccompanied late at night. In your example of walking the dog at 20:01, there’s no reason why a parent shouldn’t come with you for the walk – maybe it would give the child and parent a chance to talk, get to know each other. You say you can’t control when the dog wants out – what if the dog wants out at 3am?

its an inadvertant curfew for those with kids under 14 who have to be at home supervising younger children

Someone else has already mentioned this, but there was nothing in my suggestion that would prevent an adult being out late at night with children – going to the cinema, going for dinner, driving home from granny’s, whatever.

You know even Hitler didn't force non-jew's to wear identification.

Please see Godwin’s Law.

I used to hang around on my streets with mates during my teenage years and we weren't doing anything illegal.

So did I, but our parents knew damned well where we were and what we were up to. That doesn’t appear to be the case any more.

What is your logic here, why should children be imprisoned in their own homes?

I don’t see that having a set time to come home at can be considered as imprisonment. As you can see in my original suggestion I was still leaving scope for them to go to social events, visit each other etc..

I always thought people had to show ID to a guard on request?

I don’t believe so – we’re not currently required to carry ID unless buying something that is limited to a certain age group. Not too sure on that one.

Curfew is 8 pm in this scheme of things. This is the most retarted thing I have heard in a long long time.

You mustn’t read the news very often. The 8pm and 9pm marks were only there to start the discussion. I had hoped people might have replied with valid arguments for a later curfew (e.g. “All ballet classes take place from 7:30 to 8:30” or something like that).

You know what would happen? NO ONE WOULD COME HOME AT ALL UNTIL 8 PM and then do all their homework [ ihad 3 hours a night btw] eat, and perhaps get to bed by 1 am to be up for 6 am the next day to get to school on time.

To my mind that argument is reinforcing the idea that children are not capable of ruling themselves and need some guidance on things like time management, commitment and a lot of other things.

imposing unnatural restrictions upon human behavior is not going to turn the clock back.

I’m not entirely sure how these restrictions could be seen as unnatural. Can you clarify please?

And if the poster is 24 ? (some people under 25 have children).

Yes, as mentioned elsewhere the …25? was just bandying around an idea. Obviously there are a lot of people under the age of 25 with children. However just stating that the adult has be over 18 won’t work, as then five 17 year olds would just hang out with their 18 year old mate. I was originally thinking of maybe parent/guardian, but that’s a bit limiting as well. Perhaps you could say “with someone 10 years older than the child” (as the majority of parents would be older than 10 years of age at the time of birth). That’s one of the areas I’d be interested in hearing further opinions on.

It is a breach of rights. Children do not have fewer rights than adults

Well, that’s an interesting area to discuss. Usually you “earn” rights in return for responsibilities. Currently in Ireland, children appear to have rights, but no responsibilities. So it is little Johnnie’s right to set fire to my car, but in a court he is not legally responsible, because he is under age. Children do not have the same rights as adults as things stand. Children do not have the right to enter into a legal contract, or have a credit card, or drive a car or buy alcohol or cigarettes. Should children have the right to do what they want, when they want? That’s what we’re discussing. Obviously I think not.

cork1 · 12-12-2008 12:17am

KLAZ are you sure you didnt go to the cowen school of how a country should be run? im 18 and i can honestly say i have never commited a crime that hurt, offended or injured anybody. yes i have hung around outside with friends afer dark but so what? we did no harm whatsoever.now please stop discriminating against todays youth. your going to say things have changed but if this happened when you were young you wouldnt have been happy about it and if you were happy then i can see why your like this now. so just grow up act your age and click into reality.

Thoie · 12-12-2008 12:29am

cork1 wrote: »

im 18 and i can honestly say i have never commited a crime that hurt, offended or injured anybody. yes i have hung around outside with friends afer dark but so what?

I genuinely wasn't trying to discriminate against children in the original post, and maybe you can help me understand a few things. When I was 18 we never really hung around outside after dark. Most of the time we were in someone's house, or indoors somewhere, whether that be at the tennis club, the gym, the cinema, or dare I say it, a pub.

So what were you doing outside that you couldn't do in someone's house? Was there nowhere indoors to go to? How did you all get home afterwards, or did you all live close together?

Thoie · 12-12-2008 12:31am

metrovelvet wrote: »

Where Airport security? Thats the only place in Paris and LOndon that has happened to me.

I've been asked in Frankfurt, not at airport security. I handed over my passport, because they do have a national ID scheme and everyone is supposed to carry ID.

cork1 · 12-12-2008 12:37am

we preferred it mainly because well if you brounght 9 or 10 friends into your house at night with school the next day parents would be hanging around listening in to what you say and generally being awkward. most walked home i was outside the town so i got lifts from my parents.you can go to the gym or cinema fine but it costs money.

12-12-2008 2:07am

metrovelvet wrote: »

Where Airport security? Thats the only place in Paris and LOndon that has happened to me.

I've been checked on the street before. And I don't dress like a bum or anything.

cork1 wrote:

KLAZ are you sure you didnt go to the cowen school of how a country should be run?

Hmm... where did i suggest that i had gone to such a school, and beyond saying that I like this Idea, where have i suggested in other ways how the country should be run?

In fact, its interesting that this would be suggested to me, since you're just holding the opposite end of the stick. the additions to this thread by all the other posters against the curfew could be construed as to how this country should be run... :rolleyes:

im 18 and i can honestly say i have never commited a crime that hurt, offended or injured anybody. yes i have hung around outside with friends afer dark but so what? we did no harm whatsoever.

Good for you. I mean that. Now point out where i said that every youth in ireland indulged in crime. Or better yet, where i said the majority of young people committed crimes in Ireland.. go ahead. point it out. Really, please do.

now please stop discriminating against todays youth.

Exactly how have i discriminated against today's youth? Have i called them all scumbags? Have i said they all wear hoodies and hand around corners? Have i said they all group together and commit random acts of violence? hmm... Nope. All I've said is that I think the curfew idea is a good idea...

And in theory, i'd support it depending on the measures being brought into play, who was in charge of it, and how it was going to be handled. But nowhere in this thread has there been any of that kind of detail discussed or proposed.

your going to say things have changed but if this happened when you were young you wouldnt have been happy about it and if you were happy then i can see why your like this now.

wow, almost bitchy. Why am I like this now? haha.. Ah sure. I'm a bundle of joy nowadays and its all thanks to being beaten on a regular basis as a teenager by groups of travellers in the lovely town of Athlone. But oddly enough I don't hold any ill will towards travellers. And if i don't have any againt them, why the hell would i have anything against "young people"..

Of course, i wouldn't have been happy with it if it had been introduced when i was a teenager. I don't think i ever suggested that i would be. But then again, I'm not here to make them happy. I couldn't really give a flying f*ck about their happiness.

But then late at night, I'd like to be able to walk past a group of 6-7 teenagers without tensing up, and listening for footsteps following me afterwards...

so just grow up act your age and click into reality.

Act my age? haha. How am i not acting my age? pray tell... this should be good.

Thoie · 12-12-2008 10:08am

hunter164 wrote: »

Would you ever go and fcukoff?

That is not cogent argument, and is only reinforcing my perceptions.

For those interested in the rights of children, please refer to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

if you brounght 9 or 10 friends into your house at night with school the next day parents would be hanging around listening in to what you say and generally being awkward.

I think we're getting to some of the root of the problem here. From my own teenage years, things we didn't want our parents to hear involved discussions about the opposite sex and how much homework we had skipped. As we got older, we had conversations with our parents about the fact that we wanted conversations without them present, and reached various arrangements. My parents had the right to sit comfortably in the sitting room and not have the fridge raided by scores of ravenous teens. We, the ravenous teens, were granted the right to hang out in a different room, and to have a little privacy, in that my parents would knock on the door before coming in.

In what way do you find parents are generally awkward when people call over?

podge79 · 12-12-2008 9:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

No, only the teens/kids would need to display the ID. Oh, and also, the adult that is supervising the child outside after curfew.

But then again I can't see what the fuss was about. I always got stopped going into bars/clubs right up until i was in my mid twenties, so I always had decent ID on me. I can't see why some of you guys have such an issue with carrying ID with you. Its not as if you're being asked to show ID at gunpoint.

just like to say that I was quoting someone else and asking a question re their statement but I messed it up

johnnyskeleton · 12-12-2008 11:10pm

Thoie wrote: »

My first question is is my idea so whacky and horrendous?
Secondly, what are these legitimate things that teenagers/kids would need to be doing outside after hours?

Logical analysis of social problems runs like this:
1) identify problem
2) find the causes
3) seek ways to remedy the problem.

You seem to have skipped 1 & 2 and just gone straight to 3). Before answering why your idea is so whacky and horrendous, first tell us what the problem is that you seek to remedy. The benefit you point to is:

I think it would force parents to take more responsibility for knowing their children's whereabouts.

but you haven't shown that they don't already take responsibility for knowing their children's whereabouts.

So, go on then. What are the flaws in this plan?

You want to impose criminal sanctions on people because their children do things that you don't like. You need to have a good reason to impose criminal sanctions.

anonymous_joe · 12-12-2008 11:28pm

What are the children meant to do...?

hunter164 · 12-12-2008 11:45pm

anonymous_joe wrote: »

What are the children meant to do...?

Be good kids and not have any fun.

Thoie get your head out your arse, you were a kid once think back to that time and stop thinking just because you're an adult you can only stay out late.

metrovelvet · 12-12-2008 11:46pm

Think of all the business that would be lost. Bad for the economy.

Cow Moolester · 12-12-2008 11:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And you get asked for ID to show that you have the right to be there. If you were underage then you wouldn't have the right to be there, and subsequently shouldn't be there at all. Makes sense.

You're twisting it. What age are you? 22+? This would apply to those under the age of 18... Not adults. And its the right for kids to walk the streets late in the evening or at night, which frankly them being kids, they shouldn't really have anyway.

When parents stopped looking after their children... When the pc brigade gained momentum and all went loopy. 20 years ago there was only slight crime arising from kids & teens in the evening or at night. What has changed since then? Go on, think about it.... Its not hard to see why a curfew would solve many of the problems that have developed from those changes...

You're missing the point.
It's fair to need ID to get into a Pub/club. You are entering a privately owned establishment so therefore you abide by their rules (and the law). However, nobody owns outside.
I'm 16 but does that matter? In the grand scheme of things, you aren't worth anything more than me. We are all born free and equal, so why should you have more of a right to go outside than me?

Honestly, the stereotyping that goes on between nearly all adults is just ridiculous. Do you think we all just hang around in our trackies, smoking, doing drugs and vandalising?

Is there some magical barrier between the age of 17 and 18 that makes an 18 year old more competent to go outside after 8pm than a 17 year old or a 16 year old?

hunter164 · 12-12-2008 11:56pm

Let's just be honest Thoie's an arsehole.

Thoie · 13-12-2008 12:16am

Cow Moolester wrote: »

You're missing the point.
It's fair to need ID to get into a Pub/club. You are entering a privately owned establishment so therefore you abide by their rules (and the law). However, nobody owns outside.
I'm 16 but does that matter? In the grand scheme of things, you aren't worth anything more than me. We are all born free and equal, so why should you have more of a right to go outside than me?

Honestly, the stereotyping that goes on between nearly all adults is just ridiculous. Do you think we all just hang around in our trackies, smoking, doing drugs and vandalising?

Is there some magical barrier between the age of 17 and 18 that makes an 18 year old more competent to go outside after 8pm than a 17 year old or a 16 year old?

Thank you (genuinely) - an actual discussion with well made points. I realise that the curfew idea may seem like stereotyping of everyone under 18, and no, I don't believe that everyone under the age of 18 hangs around causing trouble.

No, there is no magical barrier between someone age 17 years and 364 days, and someone a day older. However as with all things in life there has to be a cut off point. The general consensus for most laws in Ireland set that point at 18. It's the same difference between driving at 100 kmph, and 101 kmph - one is breaking the law and the other isn't. A 17 year old may not buy cigarettes at 23:59, but one or two minutes later it's suddenly legal.

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

johnnyskeleton · 13-12-2008 12:25am

Thoie wrote: »

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

Again, what are you trying to achieve with your curfew? Are you concerned with the children's personal development, or are you more concerned for your right to walk down the street without coming across groups of children who you feel intimidated by?

Cow Moolester · 13-12-2008 12:54am

Thoie wrote: »

Thank you (genuinely) - an actual discussion with well made points. I realise that the curfew idea may seem like stereotyping of everyone under 18, and no, I don't believe that everyone under the age of 18 hangs around causing trouble.

No, there is no magical barrier between someone age 17 years and 364 days, and someone a day older. However as with all things in life there has to be a cut off point. The general consensus for most laws in Ireland set that point at 18. It's the same difference between driving at 100 kmph, and 101 kmph - one is breaking the law and the other isn't. A 17 year old may not buy cigarettes at 23:59, but one or two minutes later it's suddenly legal.

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

I wouldn't vote at all and neither would my parents. My parents don't set me a curfew because they trust that I do nothing wrong but I'm sensible enough to be in at a reasonable time.

Also, there are hardly any cases of "children" out at 4AM on a week night causing harm. Sure if that was a widespread problem, then a curfew might be acceptable but I have never even heard of people my age out at 4AM on a school night. Even if they are, that's up to the parents, not you or the state.

We spend most of our week in school and that dominates the day. Then we do our homework/study. With that curfew, we'd only have about 2 hours to actually go out with our friends before spending the rest of the night in our homes.

I mean, adults cause more trouble late at night than children so why don't we just go for an all out curfew then? You don't see 12 year olds outside a club at 3 in the morning pissed off their faces starting fights.

Finally, this curfew would never pass as law for the simple reason that it violates multiple parts of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities shall endeavour to promote the enjoyment of this right.
-how can we have a full opportunity when the time we have for recreation is limited?

The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
-"lies in the first place with his parents" see? Not the state. The parent decides.

The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
How can we develop socially if a limit is placed on the amount of time we can spend out with friends? Also, please note the line "in conditions of freedom and dignity". A curfew is the anti-freedom

Thoie · 13-12-2008 1:00am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, what are you trying to achieve with your curfew? Are you concerned with the children's personal development, or are you more concerned for your right to walk down the street without coming across groups of children who you feel intimidated by?

Sorry, was coming back to your question

So we were at
1. Identify problem
2. Find causes
3. Look for remedy

Identify problem (and remember, just because I view this as a problem doesn't mean that everyone does):
Many children these days believe they have a right to do what they want, when they want (for a few minor examples, see some posts on this thread where people say children have a right to be out whenever they want). This seems to translate in many cases (note, not all), to children who have no respect for other people in society.
So in my mind the problem is a lack of respect for other people. I'm not saying lack of respect for adults specifically, just lack of respect for anyone else at all.

Find causes:
We have a few generations of parents who cannot/will not set boundaries, or levels of acceptable behaviour for their children. Some of the reason for this can be put down to parents having less time to spend with their kids, parents not caring, parents honestly believing they're helping their children achieve independence. As an example, witnessing a 6 year old shouting racial slurs is a reflection on the parents rather than on the child. There are many other causes - some of it may indeed just be changing times as suggested.

Look for a remedy:
The (unpopular) suggestion I have made is that parents should be responsible for knowing where their children are. There would be legal and financial implications for a parent not knowing where their child is, as that could be seen as not providing enough protection for the child. As I've stated a number of times already, I'm interested in hearing other opinions on the idea (opinions on my personality don't have any particular place in this discussion).

From the simplified version of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: (italics are obviously mine)

Article 12

You have the right to give your opinion, and for adults to listen and take it seriously.
Article 13

You have the right to find out things and share what you think with others, by talking, drawing, writing or in any other way unless it harms or offends other people.
Article 14

You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs. Your parents should help you decide what is right and wrong, and what is best for you.
Article 15

You have the right to choose your own friends and join or set up groups, as long as it isn’t harmful to others.

Some people have objected to my idea on the basis that it puts restrictions on parents if they have to be checking on where their children are. I'm not precisely thrilled by that response, as to me it sends a message of "I can't be bothered". Apologies if that's not what was meant, but it's how it comes across to me.

I feel that a lot of people are talking about children's rights, without taking note of the areas where parents/adults are supposed to protect and guide, and in the areas where children are not supposed to cause harm or offence to other people.

Many people find the notion of curfews abhorrent, I accept that. People think that my leap of logic from "people have no respect" to "let's have a curfew" is wild and uncalled for.

So if we start from first principles, and accept (for the sake of this discussion) that there is a problem of lack of respect, what alternative causes and solutions can you come up with?

EamonnKeane · 13-12-2008 1:06am

Thoie wrote: »

Thank you (genuinely) - an actual discussion with well made points. I realise that the curfew idea may seem like stereotyping of everyone under 18, and no, I don't believe that everyone under the age of 18 hangs around causing trouble.

No, there is no magical barrier between someone age 17 years and 364 days, and someone a day older. However as with all things in life there has to be a cut off point. The general consensus for most laws in Ireland set that point at 18. It's the same difference between driving at 100 kmph, and 101 kmph - one is breaking the law and the other isn't. A 17 year old may not buy cigarettes at 23:59, but one or two minutes later it's suddenly legal.

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

So what you're saying is, we already have some arbitrary laws, so there's no harm in more arbitrary laws?

The sort of minors who steal cars, sell/take drugs, break into houses, assault people are not likely to be afraid of some culchie garda asking for ID. They have 60 offences already, what's one more? This will mainly affect law-abiding teenagers and is just ludicrous in every way.

It hardly chimes with other laws either. You can marry at 16, drive at 17, but leave the house after Coronation Street? No way!

Couldn't he walk the dog at 6pm? Why does 8pm make more sense?

Because he wants to? Because he had homework? Because TV was on? The State does not own the outdoors.

Well, no, I’m not tarring anyone as anything. I’m asking for good reasons as to why children should be out unaccompanied late at night. In your example of walking the dog at 20:01, there’s no reason why a parent shouldn’t come with you for the walk – maybe it would give the child and parent a chance to talk, get to know each other. You say you can’t control when the dog wants out – what if the dog wants out at 3am?

Your justifications boil down to "It is not very difficult to adhere to this rule, therefore it is a good rule."

By rights everyone should have a form of ID with them at all times. Usually a drivers license is acceptable as proof of ID. And the gardai can ask you to show ID at any time.... As can the police forces in any country. Now, normally its not enforced, but everyone should have ID with them at all times. To think otherwise is retarded.

I don't need a form of ID. If I am not suspected of a crime, why does a guard need to know who I am? And they're not exactly hard for criminals to fake.

had Kids? Nope. Have Kids? Nope. But I've lived in Ireland for over thirty years and I've seen the changes that have occured here, and the effects of those changes on the levels and types of crime that occurs here. I live equally in Athlone and Cork, and there have been major changes from when I was a teenager growing up.

There was less crime back then because there were no drugs and many young men emigrated.

I spent the last 6 months living in Xi'an, China. And I was stopped for ID checks. Same happened years ago, when I spent time in Moscow. Both places I could have been arrested for not having ID with me, and worse things than just being arrested.... But then again I don't have a problem with carrying ID with me at all times..

China and Russia! Land of the free!

Proof of identity. Why else? Be reasonable here. Why do you have a drivers license? Why do you have a passport? Why do you have a club card for the local cash'n'carry?

Because unskilled drivers kill people. Because sovereign states restrict entry of foreigners. Cash n carries don't have clubcards.

Its not part of some mad plot to keep us all under tabs. This is just an idea to reduce crime in Ireland. If it was being proposed by the government and being asked to be passed into law, I'd understand some of the extreme concerns you're seeming to have.....

I can't see it reducing crime. Skanger kids do not fear the law, or fines, or jail, or gardaí, or their parents. This'll just annoy those who obey the law.

se you think it is immoral is ignorant in the extreme.
Have you heard of incidents where parents have been investigated harshly for cruelty to children, because they may have disciplined (slapped) their child in a shop or on the street? Other people have seen this happening, and decided that parents shouldn't be allowed to hit their children.. at all.

Or, what about assisted suicide/Euthanasia in Ireland? That's denying people the freedom to kill themselves under any circumstances

Corporal punishment does not work, because the one who has been hit feels they have been wronged, not that they have done wrong. And the euthanasia thing is because the govt. see supplying the tools of suicide as equivalent to murder, not because they don't want people to commit suicide.

Ok. I've been asked to show ID in London, and Paris. Both by police carrying semi-automatic weapons. Is that a better example?

They do it in London and Paris; therefore, it is correct, is that what you're saying? The French police use ID checks to harass blacks and Arabs; they get stopped 5/6 times a day. It's passive-aggressive intimidation.

They don't execute everyone that speaks against them, but thats a different thread. I don't particularly agree with them.

No, sometimes they poison them illicitly, or give them three years in a reeducation camp without trial. It's good that you "don't particularly agree" with massive electoral fraud, single-party dictatorship, persecution of religious minorities, destruction of workers' rights. Shows the strong moral backbone your upbringing gave you.

I’m not entirely sure how these restrictions could be seen as unnatural. Can you clarify please?

People being told it is wrong to do something they know is not wrong? What's more unnatural than that?

randylonghorn · 13-12-2008 1:17am

Thoie wrote: »

I honestly think it would be a good idea to have a legal curfew in place for children - those under the age of 18.

0_o

Under 18 is a child now? So we have children in Ireland legally having sex from the age of 17?

Thoie wrote: »

.

Tbh, I couldn't support this idea for a moment, although I do agree that too many young people are roaming the streets far too late and much too young, with their parents only having a very hazy idea of where they are ... not all parents, not all families, but too many.

Parents have both a right and a duty to raise their own children. If the state is going to abrogate that right in this way, then it must be prepared to take over the linked duty as well.

Fwiw, when I was growing up my parents set reasonable limits, but they also trusted me and expected me to act responsibly towards myself and others. While I was far from an angel, and got into plenty of mischief, I had a bit of cop-on and knew the limits. That's what is often lacking these days.

Cop-on will never be instilled in young people by the state. That's the parents job, and they are in the best position to do it.

Thoie · 13-12-2008 1:20am

EamonnKeane wrote: »

So what you're saying is, we already have some arbitrary laws, so there's no harm in more arbitrary laws?

That bit was in response to the question if being 18 magically made someone more mature than they were a day earlier - and was explaining that no it doesn't, but the law doesn't deal in grey areas.

Moving on to your "marry at 16" comment, yes, you can marry at 16, but still not own a credit card until you're 18. You can drink legally drink at 18 here, but if you go to the States you're suddenly magically too young again.

Interesting comment about the State not owning the outdoors - I thought the State owned any property not defined as private. So the State owns the footpath outside my house, but not my front garden. Anyone know if that's right or wrong?

Your justifications boil down to "It is not very difficult to adhere to this rule, therefore it is a good rule."

Is that how it's coming across to everyone else?

People being told it is wrong to do something they know is not wrong? What's more unnatural than that?

That can be applied to many laws (even though curfew is an idea, not a law). I "know" that killing a chicken in my kitchen then selling it on to a restaurant is not wrong, but the law says it is.

randylonghorn · 13-12-2008 1:24am

Cow Moolester wrote: »

I mean, adults cause more trouble late at night than children so why don't we just go for an all out curfew then? You don't see 12 year olds outside a club at 3 in the morning pissed off their faces starting fights.

Actually, this young man makes a very valid point.

Why not curfew everyone at 8 p.m, Thoie?

There would be a huge decrease in drink driving, public disorder, assaults outside pubs and clubs, etc.

Thoie · 13-12-2008 1:28am

randylonghorn wrote: »

0_o

Under 18 is a child now? So we have children in Ireland legally having sex from the age of 17?

Weirdly, yes.

The word child is defined by Section 3 of the Children Act 2001 to mean a person under the age of 18 years.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Cop-on will never be instilled in young people by the state. That's the parents job, and they are in the best position to do it.

Is there any way to force parents to instil cop-on though? Ideally we wouldn't have to, parents would just do it automatically, but that quite obviously isn't happening, and the effects, as mentioned by Cow Moolester is that you have adults, who have grown up with no cop-on, hanging around after closing time, peeing on the street, causing trouble and generally being obnoxious. How many of those adults you see causing problems grew up with good examples from their parents, never put a foot wrong, and suddenly became obnoxious as they got older?

Thoie · 13-12-2008 1:31am

randylonghorn wrote: »

Actually, this young man makes a very valid point.

Why not curfew everyone at 8 p.m, Thoie?

There would be a huge decrease in drink driving, public disorder, assaults outside pubs and clubs, etc.

I wouldn't particularly mind, the only main objection I can see to this is that some people have to work night shifts. Of course, if we're going down the road of national identity cards for everyone, then those with legitimate reasons (say, ambulance workers, power station engineers, etc.) would have special ID cards that allow them out at night.

theesicko · 13-12-2008 1:34am

The idea is rediculous, did nobody have fun in their childhood playing games llike hide and seek etc. late in the evenings? Also Klaz you mention kids robbing pensioners, if kids are planning on robbing pensioners or committing other crimes then they are hardly going to pay any attention to a curfew, it would simply be broken no?? Also if they are plannin to do something like this they would just do it in the daytime instead? A curfew simply wouldnt work because it sould solve absolutely no problems. Also gaurds have better things to do. I cant believe some people are actually in favour of this, its such a bad idea. kids arent bad by nature ya know, we were all one some time ago.

jhegarty · 13-12-2008 1:35am

randylonghorn wrote: »

Actually, this young man makes a very valid point.

Why not curfew everyone at 8 p.m, Thoie?

There would be a huge decrease in drink driving, public disorder, assaults outside pubs and clubs, etc.

Good point.

How about going the whole way and have a 24 hour curfew for everyone.

You are only allowed on the street going to and from work/school. You may make one supermarket trip a week at a time to be determined by your legal government overseer.

We would be left with almost zero crime (except for curfew violators).

Cow Moolester · 13-12-2008 1:42am

Thoie wrote: »

Moving on to your "marry at 16" comment, yes, you can marry at 16, but still not own a credit card until you're 18. You can drink legally drink at 18 here, but if you go to the States you're suddenly magically too young again.

Actually, both in Ireland and most states in the US (27 states with 19 other states half way there) the legal purchasing age is 18 and 21. However in private life, once again the decision is upto the parent to give consent for their child to drink. That is why during your confirmation when you are 12/13 you agree on an age with your parents for which is acceptable to drink. Most pick 16/17.

Thoie wrote: »

Interesting comment about the State not owning the outdoors - I thought the State owned any property not defined as private. So the State owns the footpath outside my house, but not my front garden. Anyone know if that's right or wrong?

It is the public, us, that owns outdoors.
A law like this would never pass in Ireland.

Thoie · 13-12-2008 1:49am

jhegarty wrote: »

You are only allowed on the street going to and from work/school. You may make one supermarket trip a week at a time to be determined by your legal government overseer.

No need for a weekly supermarket trip - many grocery stores deliver these days.

13-12-2008 1:50am

Cow Moolester wrote: »

You're missing the point.
It's fair to need ID to get into a Pub/club. You are entering a privately owned establishment so therefore you abide by their rules (and the law). However, nobody owns outside.

And yet I dont think I am missing the point. The point is about children/teenagers being outside late in the evenings or at night. This is not about restricting them during the daylight hours.

I'm 16 but does that matter? In the grand scheme of things, you aren't worth anything more than me. We are all born free and equal, so why should you have more of a right to go outside than me?

Worth more? I dont believe that I have ever suggested that I am. I am, however an adult whereas you are still a child. Until you reach the age of 18 you will remain a child. That is the law as it stands.

When you become an adult you would have gained access to alcohol, cigarettes, bars, clubs, voting, driving etc all of which have the capacity to harm a childs development.

Honestly, the stereotyping that goes on between nearly all adults is just ridiculous. Do you think we all just hang around in our trackies, smoking, doing drugs and vandalising?

Honestly the amount of reading between the lines, and looking into the milky way for answers by a number of posters here is ridiculous. Where did I say you all hang around in such a manner?

Is there some magical barrier between the age of 17 and 18 that makes an 18 year old more competent to go outside after 8pm than a 17 year old or a 16 year old?

The difference between the age of 17 and the age of 18? Why yes, the law. When the law states that you will become an adult and gain access to everything that adults have. Prior to this you are a child, and to be protected.

randylonghorn · 13-12-2008 1:53am

Thoie wrote: »

Weirdly, yes.

The word child is defined by Section 3 of the Children Act 2001 to mean a person under the age of 18 years.

A definition strongly influenced by concerns re: property and inheritance I suspect, certainly not by physiology or psychology.

Thoie wrote: »

Is there any way to force parents to instil cop-on though?

Not easily, I will admit, as someone who has worked professionally with both young people and their parents.

But I absolutely believe that the type of policy you suggest is a step, nay, a gargantuan leap in the wrong direction. There might be some argument for using such measures where say a youngster has a criminal conviction, or where the parents are shown to be deficient, but even then it generally just postpones the inevitable, and allows the real problems to fester unseen.

For the average family, this type of measure is simply an encouragement to both parent and young person to completely forsake personal responsibility, as the state has abrogated their responsibility and undertaken to do their thinking for them.

jhegarty wrote: »

Good point.

How about going the whole way and have a 24 hour curfew for everyone.

You are only allowed on the street going to and from work/school. You may make one supermarket trip a week at a time to be determined by your legal government overseer.

We would be left with almost zero crime (except for curfew violators).

Hey, I've got it!

Give Nero a ring and tell him we want the Matrix back! Perfect solution to all our problems!

Curfews

Comments